Re: A Classical Humanist Worldview

From: Adrian Tymes (
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 23:14:09 MDT

Rick Potvin wrote:
> Do you read the Extropy posts thinking that Extropian Transhumanism
> represents the ideas that lead to a glorious future for mankind? I did,
> at one time. Then I discovered "Classical Humanism". Only by truly
> understanding the past will you understand the possible futures that lay
> ahead. Review history with me at the above link, and discover the fatal
> flaws in the transhumanisms, including Extropianism.

I just found a bunch of semantics attempting to confuse what it calls
"physical immortality" (and what I call just plain "immortality") with
what it calls "noospheric immortality" (and what I call "being
remembered"). The two are qualitatively different: in the former, one
*continues* to be able to change the world, and can fix one's mistakes;
in the latter, one's changes are, after a certain point, ceased, and
possibly even undone if it turns out that people forget or never learn
of your work.

I did not find any coherent flaws pointed out, though I did see a bunch
of "to be constructed" notes, implying that someone is setting up the
illusion of a discussion forum with the intent of going back and
modifying the already "posted" comments decrying transhumanism. Such
deceit proves nothing on absolute logic, of course, but it does
decrease this source's credibility when one allows for things to be
*probably* true or false.

Indeed, the fact that most efforts I have seen to discredit
transhumanism boil down to such discredible schemes, gives me faith
that we are on to some kernel of truth that most of humanity just
doesn't want to admit or doesn't know about. If it *could* be
disproven so easily, why do all the attempts keep failing so poorly?

The past is like the future, true...but also different. Care must be
taken not to misapply history's lessons.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:11 MDT